Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 30



More Doctor Who story templates

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete all. Insufficient scope. Red rose64 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Graske stories
 * Arcateenian stories
 * Trickster stories

More templates of questionably usefulness. Please see this discussion and this one. ‖ Ebyabe  talk -   Welfare State   ‖ 19:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all the main article is a pipe to the list, indicating the story arc is not notable or that it is WP:SYNCurb Chain (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all no where near enough to warrant templates. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Non-free with permission

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Kept. No consensus. Changing the template may be a good idea and this can be discussed on the template's talk page. JYolkowski // talk 02:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Non-free with permission

Pointless template, because if we have to treat it as non-free fair use anyway, it doesn't matter whether a copyright holder has given us permission to use it or not if it is not a free license because our policies are very strict about how we can use such material. If a copyright holder wants to license their work under a free license, then great - they need to send their permission into OTRS, and there are already templates for that. This one needs to get dumped. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Argh. I'm pretty sure that we specifically do not want anything uploaded under non-transferable licenses. As the nom says, we are bound to use any such uploads under fair use only anyway, so it's irrelevant that we've allegedly been given additional rights (which we can't possibly hope to enforce). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 01:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I use this template on files provided through OTRS for which the copyright holder grants use at Wikipedia but doesn't extend it to a full free license. I will normally add a ticket number to the "other information" field for the non-free rationale and this template makes it more obvious that the file was provided by the copyright holder.  If anything this helps to clarify that there is less legal liability on Wikipedia's part in using the file.  PermissionOTRS has traditionally only been used on free files. – Adrignola talk 12:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "grants use at Wikipedia but doesn't extend it to a full free license"? My understanding was that we only used free content under license, and anything not released under license was used under fair use. Indeed, this has been the reasoning behind a good number of deleted permissions templates recently. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They have granted permission only for use at Wikipedia. That is not a free license release, but not entirely the same as saying we're using this file without permission and claiming an exemption under fair use provisions of copyright law to otherwise avoid a copyright lawsuit.  Non-free policies established locally will still apply.  This may be a distinction Wikipedians don't wish to make.  At Commons, for instance, commons:Template:copyrighted free use does not redirect to PD-self as was done here.   – Adrignola talk 14:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thing is, if someone uploads a file and selects, "The copyright holder has given me permission to use this work only in Wikipedia articles", the file is immediately nominated for speedy deletion as F3 with the "dear uploader" message (Permission from license selector). So it seems to be the case that "Wikipedia only" = death to image.  Thus it seems that's not a distinction that we wish to make, because it really doesn't matter in this case, because it's treated the same, and if it fits our guidelines on non-free content, since our policy is stricter than legal fair use, we're already well-covered.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if a copyright holder has gone and explicitly granted less-than-free additional rights to Wikipedia, our policy on non-free content is that we only use it under the fair use provisions that US copyright law grants us. That's right there in the lead section of WP:NONFREE. Seeing as our interpretation of what fair use allows is typically considered to be a lot stricter than it really has to be, nobody should be afraid of using our non-free images under the same fair use terms that we do even if the copyright holder has explicitly not granted permission. OTRS is doing a good thing in trying to seek additional assurances that copyright holders won't try to prevent WP using images when US copyright law explitly allows for it, but it sends the wrong message to suggest that whether we are explicitly granted permission or not really matters so long as we are careful with fair use. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment if a copyright holder grants permission, it should be noted. Just make sure this template always accompanies a fairuse template. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would much rather see an OTRS ticket number for this sort of stuff than a template without actual evidence of permission. Too much potential for misuse here, and by getting rid of this in favor of an OTRS template, it means that they actually have to lodge the permission somewhere official.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as a needless template. Copyrightholder's permission is immaterial if we're using the image under fair use. — Bility (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. I have gone through too many non-free images that were used without anyone's permission.  I have given di-no fair use rationale to non-free images that were used without rationales and without owners' permissions, such as File:Henry Kendall.gif, which was claimed to be a free image but found later to be of the copyrighted film Rich and Strange, which was claimed to be a free film but found later to be copyrighted in the United States under Uruguay Round Agreements Act.  Without permission from copyright owners of copyrighted works, even with a proper rationale and a proper license tag, either any copyright owner of one work may request a removal of a fairly-used lower quality of the same work at any time, or an image tagged with di-no permission for seven days may have been deleted.  ABC has removed File:Jake Martin.jpg, a promo image, from its All My Children official website, which has been inactive since the show's cancellation; nevertheless, this image is still intact, and the attempt to have it removed by me for no permission from ABC has failed because that promo image does not require ABC's (or the photographer's) permission to fairly use it.  Even images of Holby City characters have been used without BBC's (or photographers') permissions.  However, someday the photos' copyright owners will see those images and will request removals of these low-quality copies.  Also, the copyright owner should acknowledge this template, and Wikipedia should include instructions for this template and include this template as instructions of following policies of copyrights.  On the other hand, this template requires conjunction with another fair-use tag to keep one image; even this template may not save images that are used without rationales and tags.  Speaking of images, there are more than 200 images that use this template.   --Gh87 (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether a copyright owner has granted us permission is utterly irrelevant as far as fair use goes. They could specifically deny permission and we could still use a file under fair use. Permission is only relevant where it's permission to use under a free license. The implication that we track permission for non-free files as well (such as by this template) can only cause trouble. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are an administrator as well as SchuminWeb, correct? You have permitted non-free content under criteria of fair use without copyright holders' permission, am I correct?  I recommend: you may need to discuss this with administrators who handle the "Wikipedia:" articles of non-free criteria before or after this debate will have been resulted.  Would any other administrator think this template is useless?  Let's hear other administrators' opinions on this besides yours and SchuminWeb's.
 * This template is a supplemental copyright tag and may kill any images without other conjuncting templates, and that is the truth that you have no choice except to accept, even if you will have challenged so far; however, one image was not permitted to be copied to Commons, while it was tagged with PD-USGov-NASA around that time, so this edit may help you re-think about this: . Does either this edit or di-no permission make this template useless?  Sadly, instructions of Requesting copyright permission and some others do not mention this template at all, and the casual editors may barely know this template at all.  Even I found out about this template recently.  At least it was mentioned in File copyright tags/Non-free: moreover, the list has instructed to replace one deprecated template with this one and other conjuncting tags.  Maybe there should be changes in other "Wikipedia:" articles; what do you think?  --Gh87 (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in WP:FUR which refers to permission, and IMO the rationale in the diff you've presented is incomplete: the FUR should discuss why we're using the file, not under what conditions we're claiming to use the file. WP:REUSE explains how external parties can make use of our fair use content, and links to fair use which explains that a) being non-profit is one factor in evaluating fair use, and b) getting permission from the original copyright holder isn't. If you think there's something that needs clarifying in our guidelines on non-free content then feel free to propose changes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * How can I do that? I can't figure out which "Wikipedia talk" namespaces I must use.  Also, I'm not an administrator, and I have become very busy.  This would require either simple or complex procedures to start a discussion, and I can't figure out whom I should discuss with first.  --Gh87 (talk) 09:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Non-free content is the main talk page for discussions of that sort. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But not for canvassing people to this deletion discussion!!! Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - OTRS should certainly record somewhere if the copyright holder has given restricted permission, but this template is worse than useless for the uploader. They can't confirm the claim without going thru OTRS, and they have to upload under NFCC anyway, and most of the people using the template won't understand that and will just get pissed off when their image is deleted. If the copyright holder has licensed the content under a restrictive license that is publically available, perhaps there should be a section somewhere to say that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The template brings nothing to the table that we don't already have. We do not need a copyright holder's permission to use the image under fair use law in the U.S. This template doesn't change that. Having the template doesn't mean we can use the image across more articles. The image is still non-free, and our transferability of its use means we will not use it more frequently in articles. The template doesn't mean we will use it outside of article space, since our non-free policies prevent such use. Since the template does nothing, why have it? --Hammersoft (talk) 12:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The only time that we need to know if permission has been granted by the copyright owner is if they have allowed the image to be freely distibuted from Wikipedia (eg CC-BY or CC-BY-SA licensing). Any other type of license does not need any input from the copyright holder for us to use as a non-free image within the bounds of US Fair Use law.  Even a "free to use at Wikipedia" permission is pointless to note (such as at File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg) if redistribution rights aren't extended - that makes it non-free.  Note that this will not cause images with this template to be deleted as long as the rest of NFCC is met.  --M ASEM  (t) 12:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I think it's not a bad thing to record that we are using an image with the good will of its owner. Yes, as everyone above has noted, this doesn't have any bearing on the analysis of the image for our NFC policy.  But for random people finding the image page, and judging WP by what they find there, I think it is nice to mark that we do have the blessing of the image owner, when that is the case. Jheald (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The only permission worth noting is permission to use under a free license. Any other permission is going to be of limited use to anyone wishing to re-use content, especially with the template's current wording (which refers to a grant to Wikipedia only). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there's no harm in recording it, but would a space for it in the FUR template be more appropriate? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Both non-free image data and non-free image rationale are NOT substitutes for this nominated template. There are no "Permission" parameters in either one.  As this voter said, this template may indicate "the blessing of the image owner", even if it doesn't extend to third-parties.  --Gh87 (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong something. First, if we have information that a copyright holder has given permission, we should WP:PRESERVE that information regardless of its irrelevance to non-free use policy, because there may be a good reason why someone has documented it for a possibly unknown purpose, and we don't want any unintended consequences.  Second, the information should be recorded in some form other than a non-free use template, which indeed is out of place and may lead people down the wrong path.  So the template should be modified or deleted, but not before finding a way to save the data.  - Wikidemon (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The place to record permissions is OTRS, which is of course the way these permissions should have been received in the first place. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but modify: Per discussions above, it would seem useful to add a link to the OTRS permission ticket (if one exists), or at least a link or statement outlining the permission that was granted. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Formspring

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Formspring

One usage, really necessary? The Evil IP address (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a social network. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Facebook page

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted WP:CSD at author request. JohnCD (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Facebook page

Looks like a fork of Facebook to me, which should be used for consistency and easier maintenance. The Evil IP address (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTFACEBOOK. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete — I am the author and have tagged it with db-author. — Robert Greer (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Marvel Animated Universe

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge and rename Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Marvel Animated Universe







Delete as per Articles for deletion/Marvel animated universe. The Marvel Animated Universe does not exist. It is a fan-made non-notable grouping of television series. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The template itself can be merged into Marvel Animation. As for the categories:
 * Upmerge the 2 shows and 1 video game from Category:Marvel animated universe to Category:Marvel Comics animation. The list has been deleted as part of a standing consensus against that particular type of copy-n-paste back fill.
 * Category:Marvel animated universe characters and Category:Marvel animated universe episodes renamed as Category:Marvel animated television characters and Category:Marvel animated television episodes.
 * - J Greb (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Merge Marvel Animated Universe into Marvel Animation, and merge Category:Marvel animated universe into Category:Marvel Comics animation per J Greb. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't Merge Hang on. You can't merge Marvel Animated Universe into Marvel Animation, because the latter refers to the company founded in 2008, whereas the former only contained series from the 90s, and so weren't from the company, Marvel Animation. Also, I don't see what is to be gained from merging Category:Marvel animated universe into Category:Marvel Comics animation, as all of the series from the former are already a part of the latter (I should probably also mention that Category:Marvel animated universe is a little emptier because I removed the involved TV series from this Category). --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The templates could still be merged, if the resulting template is given a new name, as suggested below. The series that are specifically from the company Marvel Animation could have their own sub group to differentiate them from the 1990's series. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's okay then, but the template would then have to include various other animated Marvel shows made outside the "universe" and before the company. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not mandatory to have a single giant template with all entries. It may be better to divide the entries into some natural groups (and groups by decade are very natural), and have smaller templates with each. After all, it has sense to expect a reader of "Wolverine and the X-Men" to be interested in "The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes", but not so much in "Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends" Cambalachero (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's probably a better idea. I think that it should be renamed, provided that other templates are created for other time periods. Having said that, there is already a template in place for 2008-present under the "Marvel Animation" name mentioned above, which doesn't fit in with exact decades. Also, funny you should have mentioned "Wolverine and the X-Men" as connected to "Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes", as despite being in the same universe, they are actually from different decades. So, going by this, perhaps better intervals rather than just decades could be utilised. Ones that have a greater connection to style. However, this may cause a problem with original research and verifiability, as we can't just make up eras of Marvel animated TV shows... Having said all of that, I still think the categories listed should be deleted. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename the template to "1990's Marvel animated series", or something like that. Even if there is not a "shared universe", they share the source (Marvel Comics) and the time period (which is out-of-universe info). So, the template is not problematic in itself. Cambalachero (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral - primarily because I have canvassing concerns on the part of the nominator. Eight editors were notified; only one was siginificantly involved in working on the template in question. I'm willing to good faith that it's an honest mistake on the part of a learning editor, but it's possible that the process here has been tainted. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I assumed you may have some interest, considering you contributed to the deletion of the article. And from the history of the template, there was really only one editor who was significantly involved in working on the template and as you said, that editor was contacted (I think the second most involved editor (J Greb) only edited nine times, and was also contacted). So, I needed to look elsewhere to notify others, such as on project pages (three relevant ones), and I also figured that those who commented in the discussion involving the deletion of the article would be appropriate, and I see no reason for you to claim (assuming good faith or not) that it was canvassing or a mistake (particularly as you'll notice, the editor Peregrine Fisher was also contacted, despite opposing views on the article's deletion). Nor do I think it is appropriate for you to primarily base your judgement of the issue on the judgement of others. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't base my judgment on anybody other's opionion, don't worry. It's just that the way you went about it would, by most people be considered canvassing, unfortunatly. Personally I agree that this should be deleted. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I support Cambalachero's suggestion to rename the template. Spidey  104  20:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and Rename as it would be much more useful to the casual user to have a guide to the whole, than to get involved in some minor fanboy nitpicking. Include the entries for Marvel Animation and MAU in the template so if you want to know the difference, you can find out.  Benny Digital  Speak Your Brains 08:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and rename into Marvel Animation per J Greb and Fortdj33. It would be useful for Marvel animated television series, like I said, that Marvel animated universe is totally fancruft. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  04:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been convinced. Merge and rename into one whole template (also include the animated series that are not currently in "Marvel Animation" or "Marvel Animated Universe"), but the categories should be deleted. I think that the "Marvel Animated Universe" category should be deleted instead of merged into the "Marvel Comics Animation" category, as everything from the first category is already in the second. And I see no need for the other categories either. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:DirkB

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy deletion, per author request. -- Menti  fisto  16:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * DirkB

See Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_29. Is the username of a particular person (actually, I have no idea what this is. It's not a user, and they don't have an article). Arguably a rather POINTY action, and at this point it's just ridiculous.  N Y  Kevin  @204, i.e. 03:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per my comments at the NYB discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I just struck and changed part of the nomination. I don't think it's likely to affect Jenks24's !vote.  In any event, I'm not entirely sure whether WP:G1 applies to this, since we can't tell what it's supposed to be...  -- N  Y  Kevin  @219, i.e. 04:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't effect (affect?) my vote. In case your interested, the user the template references is User:Beetstra, who signs as "Dirk Beetstra". Jenks24 (talk) 05:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete silly and useless template. — CharlieEchoTango  — 05:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment the redirect to here, Template:Dirk is even worse! It's nothing about the knife Dirk or anything else from articlespace Dirk (disambiguation) ! 65.94.77.11 (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You rediscovered the wikiwheel. Have a popsicle on me! . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete this is for the sole use of one user who can't spell Beestra. (per comment provided by creator at TFD ) 65.94.77.11 (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's Beetstra. That makes it two of us, doesn't it? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Its the first time I've had to use the name, so No It Doesn't, since I didn't use the template, and am never going to ever use it for its purpose. I wouldn't create a template for a name I'd enter once in a blue moon. And if you enter the name so often that you need a template, then you should probably learn the name. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. The creation of these two templates is preposterous because of someone's poor spelling?  Such a premise allows Wikipedians to make templates on the whim to so that they can reference other Wikipedians?Curb Chain (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as test page as there is no functionality; Ridiculous; useless;  Improper use of templatespaceCurb Chain (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.